Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

So this is SlimVirgin's latest head-ache...

I was wondering what was keeping her from looking over the WP:ATT proposal... Well, critics of McKeith, if you work with SlimVirgin instead of resisting her changes, then this article, including the criticism, would be far more credible. Being a skeptic myself, I worry that nobody will take the legitimate criticism on this page seriously because it tries so hard to refute everything about the subject. I think Crum is also agreeing that there is a lot of legitimate criticism, but this article is completely out of balance and could be renamed "Goldacre's criticism of McKeith". I don't understand, what possible harm there is in reducing the amount of criticism? --Merzul 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim hasn't even recommended limiting the amount of criticism that is currently on the page much, just not adding more from a single source. I agree that the summary of info about the AANC should be included, as it is at the moment. Also the ASA statement about her using the title 'Dr.' being 'likely to mislead' would be an absolute gem if we could track it down from the ASA themselves, or some other source. The thing is Goldacre already has a fervent opinion of McKeith's using the title 'Dr.' so any mention he makes of it he will have construed in such a way as to support his (completely understandable) polemic.Merkinsmum 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if a source other than Goldacre is available then it should be used. In the case of the ASA there are other sources. For instance, there is this one. And this one. The Press Association's version of the story has been reported in various places, including on the Which? magazine site.
But I do not agree that information relayed by Goldacre should not be included purely because he is her most prominent critic. Whatever his opinion of her, his factual claims are made in a national newspaper. McKeith has already demonstrated her willingness to sue, so I find it highly unlikely that — for instance — the dead cat claim was false (it was in fact corroborated by Quackwatch, but then McKeith's various defenders decided that wasn't a usable source either).
Stuarta 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'dead cat incident' IMO is neither relevant nor notable, within this article, simply because it carries no meaningful message and sounds like propaganda. If a subject says he's a member of society X, and it turns out that X only requires a declaratory statement and a fee, then this is non-news, since it is extremely common. If then some person files a false memebership application named after his dead cat and 'joins', that also is non-news and non-notable. Although we are not a newspaper, we also need a man-bites-dog (or cat ;^)) story to show significance and justify inclusion. Crum375 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have already explained what "message" it carries. McKeith vaunted her membership of this organisation, as noted in both the Guardian and the Observer. It bears on her credibility as a nutritionist. Certainly if the AANC is to be mentioned at all, their standards cannot be ignored.
Stuarta 18:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that if she 'vaunted' that membership by clearly saying or implying that joining it is anything more than a statement and a fee, and we have clear evidence that this is false, that combination (when cited from neutral reliable source) could be relevant. But short of that, it does not belong. Crum375 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have quoted the Observer describing it as "much-vaunted". You are suggesting that the Observer was not accurate in this summary?
Stuarta 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a source showing us one or more direct quotes from McKeith where she appears to be 'vaunting' the membership in an organization in a way that clearly implies or states that membership therein requires more than a declaration and an entry fee. Just some paper (i.e. some reporter) saying someone 'vaunted' something is insufficient evidence IMO to allege fraud in a BLP article, which is what we are effectively doing here. Crum375 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
And accuracy is not my concern. This is not an article about nutrition, but an article about a living person. Sensitivity, respect, and neutrality are more important than who is right and who is wrong. We should inform that there are critics and give them about 1/3 of the space that is given to sympathetic treatment of the subject. I don't think we need to debunk all her claims or black-mouth at every opportunity. --Merzul 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If ever I heard a non-neutral POV that has to be it!!! ••Briantist•• talk 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing non-neutral in this. I would say the same thing on any article about a living person. In fact, I think this woman is a fraud, but I don't think wikipedia should be the one who tries to expose her. Imagine if this Wikipedia article was about you! I mean, nobody deserves a page like this unless they are a mass-murderer. I'm not asking you to remove all criticism, I'm asking for balance! --Merzul 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
By your argument, Wikipedia is a place for a PR whitewash! ••Briantist•• talk 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"Adolf Hitler started World War 2 and exterminated millions of Jews, homosexuals and gypsies. However, he was also known as a vegetarian who loved animals." I'm sorry, but "balance" does not mean simply adding positive spin or deleting negative materials from articles. --Paul Moloney 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Very sad, even my "unless they're a mass-murderer" could not resist the power of Godwin's law, and PR whitewash is just as unfair. According to the peer review: "I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition?" I admire his honesty, and request to neutralize the article. --Merzul 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if there is one thing more predictable than an Internet discussion tending towards mention of Hitler, it's the invocation of Godwin's Law when it does. Its mention is as much a cliché as what it describes. Furthermore, as the page to which you directed us says, "Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison it made were actually appropriate."
You say, "nobody deserves a page like this unless they are a mass-murderer". That is hyperbole for a page that does little more than present facts about its subject's qualifications, affiliations and pseudo-scientific pronouncements. Some people here appear to believe that, almost regardless of the subject and the documented record, a biographical Wikipedia article should not be too negative. To this end, various facts have been elided; and as a consequence the article contains less information. Yet, as I have already said, it is not possible to assess whether this article is fair without a detailed consideration of the sources. Vatic proclamations regarding policy pages are not sufficient.
The exception you allow for mass-murderers illustrates the point. Sometimes a biographical page will necessarily carry a lot of criticism. This possibility cannot be ruled out a priori, as you appear to be suggesting, purely on the grounds that its subject is a TV nutritionist and not a murderer.
Stuarta 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I apologize for the immature ways I have tried to explain myself. This discussion is essentially being repeated below, so I will respond there. --Merzul 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the above comment is an example of Godwin's Law. McKeith was not being compared to Hitler. The point was being made to show the absurdity of always insisting on giving both 'sides of the story' even treatment when one is plainly trivial or absurd. The use of a reductio ad absurdum argument seems fairly acceptable in this case. Jamrifis 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The essence of BLP

This article has to be written as though we know and care nothing about Gillian McKeith, except insofar as we have an obligation to make sure the article is well-sourced and fair. Some very strong feelings of animosity toward McKeith are being expressed on this talk page, particularly by Stuarta, Conjoiner, Jooler, and Briantist, and at several points in its history the article has looked like an attack page as a result, which is why an alert was posted about it.

Every piece of criticism and praise has to be carefully sourced and carefully written up. I haven't suggested that Goldacre's material be removed. I'm suggesting that we don't continue to use him as a source, otherwise we may as well invite him here to write the article himself. If his criticism of McKeith is valid, others will chime in, so let's use those other sources from now on. If that means there's less criticism available, it also means other sources aren't repeating what Goldacre says, and we should let that tell us something.

The first two sentences of BLP say: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research."

The impression I get from a couple of the more aggressive participants here is that they haven't even read the content policies, much less agreed to adhere to them strictly.

The essence of BLP is that articles about living persons must tread lightly, and editors must remember that a real person's real life is being affected. We must try to reflect what has been published about that person, while striving to be fair and decent. This is sometimes a very hard thing to do, especially when the coverage by reliable sources involves insults and satire, and it requires Wikipedians to be good writers and responsible editors, and to develop intuitions about when a reliable publication needs to be quoted, when it needs to be paraphrased, and when it perhaps ought to be ignored. For example, if the Observer mentions her "much-vaunted" membership of a professional body, we don't have to reproduce that quote, because we recognize it as a dig, and we're above that, even if the Observer is not.

I'm requesting that everyone on this page adopt a position of disinterested enquiry about McKeith, within the spirit of the content policies, with the aim of producing an article Wikipedia can be proud of, rather than one that's triggering alerts on noticeboards and causing editors to fall out with each other. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was not suggesting we include that quotation from the Observer. I was pointing to it because it is part of the justification for inclusion of information about the AANC that some people here do not believe should be included.
Secondly, I do not think "disinterested enquiry" mandates that McKeith's PhD's lack of recognised accreditation be omitted from the article, as you have advocated.
Stuarta 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have lost the thread here: is anyone still advocating that the status of her PhD be concealed? I regard disclosure as essential. Man with two legs 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The current version states:

In 1994, she obtained a master's degree, and in 1997, a Ph.D., both in holistic nutrition via a distance-learning programme from the non-accredited American Holistic College of Nutrition — now the Clayton College of Natural Health in Birmingham, Alabama.

which sounds fine to me. The reader can get more info about the school by clicking through the wikilink. Crum375 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
YES, I KNOW THAT. I can read. My question was about whether there are still people who want to remove it or whether that one is now settled. Man with two legs 10:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone ever wanted it concealed. Of course that information should be there. The problem is that when something which may be true is written in an attacking way, especially when it's about a living person, and when the sources used are the kind that are discouraged by policy, it's quicker to remove the problematic material than to rewrite it. It can then be discussed on the talk page. The wording around the time that I became involved was very biased, and I believe that it was as a result of my complaint that two administrators are now at this page trying to enforce policy. If they were here because they're huge fans of McKeith and have an axe to grind, they would have been editing this article long ago. ElinorD 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, SlimVirgin removed the fact that McKeith's PhD-granting insitution was unaccredited, with the comment "let's leave out the whole issue of accreditation". She has not explicitly rescinded this view, but seems to have ceased advocating it/deleting the information. It looks like we have tacit consensus on this now: the non-accreditation fact stays.
Stuarta 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On the day that she started editing this article (I think), SlimVirgin left a note on my talk page saying that she didn't disagree with my feeling that the question mark over the PhD should be made clearer, but that she'd like to see better sources used than the Sun. It seems that every time an administrator (or a user) tries to remove something because of policy, there are all sorts of ad hominem remarks about that editor's motives, instead of a calm discussion on how we can find a way to include that information without violating policy. ElinorD 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is you who is failing to assume "good faith". Is it your POV that takes critism personally? ••Briantist•• talk 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant what SlimVirgin left on your talk page. Her edit record speaks for itself: she removed the information, saying that we should "leave [it] out". Consequently, as a matter of verifiable fact, it is not true that no one "ever wanted it concealed". SlimVirgin did want it concealed, whatever she wrote elsewhere.
As it happens, she removed this information after she left the message you refer to on your talk page. There is also the problem that she appeared to think that The Sun was the source for "the PhD thing". It wasn't. It was the source for an uncontroversial quotation regarding the wrong CV being sent out. This, unfortunately, illustrates the general problem of editors arriving here and assuming religious citation of the Wikipedia policy pages will suffice to produce a worthwhile article. At least as important are a proper grasp of the sources and a willingness to engage with the facts of the particular case.
Since SlimVirgin has now apparently ceased promoting the removal of the PhD accreditation status from the article, I regard the matter as closed. But please read the factual record before making such assertions again.
Stuarta 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not irrelevant. People are implying that SlimVirgin (who wasn't sufficiently interested in the subject even to have found this page before I complained to administrators about it) has some axe to grind, and is removing this information because she's a fan of McKeith, or something like that. I can't speak for SlimVirgin, but since I know that I am not at all an admirer of McKeith, and since I have been subject to the same kind of insinuations, simply because I felt the page was in violation of BLP, I feel that there is a tendency on this page for every editor who doesn't want poorly-sourced negative material about McKeith in the article to be suspected or accused of being a McKeith fan with an agenda in editing this article. Now, I know where I stand with regard to McKeith. SlimVirgin may be a huge fan; she may even be Gillian McKeith herself, or someone who works for her, hiding under Wikipedia anonymity. But it seems extremely unlikely, since (a) she showed absolutely no interest in this page until a complaint was made, and (b) she's doing nothing except trying to enforce policy, for which I commend her. Although I've opposed a lot of the attacks and insults in the article, I'd be extremely happy if someone put some properly-sourced, reliable, material, not all coming from Ben Goldacre, into the article, explaining that there are question marks over her doctorate, that she has no peer-reviewed publications, etc. And, going by the "irrelevant" post SlimVirgin made on my page (how is it irrelevant?), and some of her posts here, I'm quite sure that she would be happy with such material as well. ElinorD 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It remains true that, regardless of what SlimVirgin wrote elsewhere, she did indeed advocate removal of the information regarding accreditation. I am not interested in speculating about what you feel people are "implying". I am simply pointing out the facts.
You wrote: I don't think anyone ever wanted it [the PhD accreditation status] concealed.
I have pointed out that SlimVirgin did indeed want to conceal that information, and removed it from the article. This stands regardless of what she wrote on your page. Further discussion is futile until you address this.
Stuarta 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I think there is enough, and quite possibly too much criticism from Goldacre in here. Goldacre appears to be only mildly notable, and that in part because he is a persistent critic of McKeith. This article should not be an extension of his column and blog. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


If his criticism of McKeith is valid, others will chime in...and we should let that tell us something.. Not necessarily. McKeith is wealthy and has a record of suing. Only a few people who have the resources of a major newspaper behind them or the chutzpah of Goldacre or John Garrow can feel free to publish. Little people who complain get sued. On a slightly different tack, if there were any credible sources that supported her science and qualifications, I would quote them...but there aren't any.

BTW, are we mere mortals permitted to see these alerts on noticeboards so we can judge for ourselves if the complaints are justified? Phaedrus86 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Press reports about 'Dr'

Yes, thank you... and google has more. --Merzul 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I left out the duplicates! Just thought they might come in handy for Slimdenial! ••Briantist•• talk 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting uncomfortable with the tone on this talk page. Three sections have the name of an editor in the title ("What's with SlimVirgin's POV taking precident?", "Slim's edit", and "So this is SlimVirgin's latest head-ache"), and now we have snide remarks about "Slimdenial". All I can see is that there were some people apparently using Wikipedia to attack Gillian McKeith (even if they didn't realise that themselves), and an administrator came along and brought the article into line with WP:BLP, making it look much more professional. I don't necessarily agree with every single change she made, but overall, she changed it from a blatant violation of BLP to something that we can now discuss possible improvements to. ElinorD 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
See irony ••Briantist•• talk 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith's awards

I've started a section for awards (I notice that Ben Goldacre has one!). In You Are What You Eat (and probably elsewhere), McKeith says she was "honoured with the prestigious 'Uplifting The World Award' at Westminster". Intensive googling has left me none the wiser -- does anyone know anything about this award? Google gives nothing but McKeith's references to it (via booksellers etc.), and I think we should find out more about it before adding it to the article. IanHenderson 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, and there is one more award mentioned here. --Merzul 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the "Uplifting The World Award" has no web-presence of its own. --Merzul 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Only other mention I can find is of Sudama getting one. A little bit of extra phraseology there - "oneness-heart" - suggests we might be talking about the Sri Chinmoy Lifting up the World with a Oneness-Heart award [1]. Tearlach 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Great bit of investigative work -- thanks for that. I'll add something about it to the article. IanHenderson 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't just yet. Personally, I'm pretty sure of the identification, but that's the kind of sourced-based deduction that WP:NOR legitimately warns against. Tearlach 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when I looked into it a bit more I decided it was better not to. The difference in wording ("Uplifting the World Award" compared to "Lifting Up the World With a Oneness-Heart") and the lack of mention of Sri Chinmoy in You Are What You Eat is a bit of an issue. I'll see if I can find any reporting of it -- the problem is Chinmoy has lifted up ~7000 people, and there's no list of recipients that I can find. IanHenderson 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A trifle more evidence: Brenda Blethyn mentions it in the Sunday Mirror, "Truth behind my pap pix", November 9, 2003
"Sri Chinmoy, a spiritual advisor to the UN, goes around the world spreading peace and harmony. He honours people who have done well in their work by literally lifting them up. He did it to me on stage at The Great Hall in Westminster". Tearlach 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Goldacre blog vs. Guardian

In a recent edit summary, Slimvirgin instructed us, with no apparent justification, "do not link to the blog when the Guardian is available". Of the two, the blog is canonical - it has longer versions of articles edited down for publication in the Guardian, and user comments with further responses by Goldacre. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Andy, please read the content policies. We don't use blogs as third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a policy which prohibits the use of the blogs of bona fide professional journalists. Andy Mabbett 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to Goldacre, he's not a professional journalist -- he works full-time for the NHS according to badscience.net. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia, but I guess the issue is that the same standards don't apply to what's in his blogs vs The Guardian (e.g. the blog has no Press Complaints Commission oversight). IanHenderson 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed a major issue. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"professional" != "full time". He's a professional journalist. Andy Mabbett 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The standard of his journalism is professional IMO, but by profession I'd describe him primarily as a doctor. I think the main point is that blogs don't have the same level of oversight as newspapers. IanHenderson 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
He's not a professional journalist, and even if he were, we'd still be reluctant to use a blog for criticism of a BLP. The only reason we're using his material is that it was published in the Guardian; therefore, the Guardian is our source, not Goldacre, and so we link to the Guardian, not to his personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course he's a professional journalist. To suggest otherwise is an unwarranetd slight on his professionalism. AS I have already pointed out, the blog has the canonical form of his articles. Andy Mabbett 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Slim this is unacceptable. The Guardian articles are the distilled form of the blog. The blog is usually more correct because it manages to correct the the typos that enter the newspaper articles. (see http://www.badscience.net/?p=359#comment-10292> ) Jooler 23:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop promoting Goldacre. It's getting ridiculous, and all you're succeeding in doing, ironically, is undermining him, because your promotion is making people suspicious. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Slim it is UNACCEPTABLE for you to edit someone else's post like that! You removed the link above -because I was "promoting Goldacre" - I was pointing to a post on his blog that stated that the Guardian article had a typo that was not in the blog entry! Jooler 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the Guardian is a better source per se than a blog of one of its journalists. If they both adequately support the point being made then the Guardian is the better source. If the blog includes material that the Guardian doesn't AND that extra material makes a difference to supporting the point being made, then cite the blog. The main point to keep in mind is that readers have to do a bit of work to decide whether badscience.net is a good source or not (I think it is, but that's not the point). A great many readers can easily see that the Guardian is a reliable source.
We don't use blogs as third-party sources - Um, we can. WP:VERIFY says blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, but it doesn't say completely unacceptable, and it does go on to say: self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist...which pretty well covers Goldacre's blog badscience.net. Phaedrus86 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Blogs might be acceptable under some circumstances, but WP:BLP will inevitably trump any possibility of using them when it comes to critical material about living individuals. By the way, which do you think Goldacre is, a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field" or a "well-known professional journalist"? Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no sense in which he's a professional journalist. He wants to be regarded as a physician, and says he's a junior doctor in the NHS, which is what he bases his credentials on. And in any event, he is not our source. The Guardian is. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Who say's he/ his blog are not our source? How do you know where I and other editors are reading his writing? And why can he (or anyone) not be a professional in two or more fields? Andy Mabbett 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
His blog obviously can't be our source, because if it were, the material couldn't go in in the first place, per WP:BLP. It's only the fact that The Guardian has published this material that makes it possible to quote it at all in this article. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
His blog obviously can't be our source, because if it were, the material couldn't go in in the first place, per WP:BLP. - please cite the specific part of BLP which you believe mandates that. Andy Mabbett 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). (WP:BLP#Reliable_sources) Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
no sense in which he's a professional journalist - oh please! He has been writing a weekly column for a major UK newspaper for 4 years and has won major awards for journalism. What more does he have to do to be a professional journalist? And when he writes something in the Guardian worth quoting, the forum helps, but the article is our source. Phaedrus86 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people write weekly columns, that doesn't make them professional journalists. He appears to be some sort of medical doctor by profession. Do you have any reliable sources which refer to him as a professional journalist? I ask this only out of curiosity, of course, since WP:BLP obviously wouldn't allow us to use a blog as a source for critical material about a living person. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It depends what we mean by "professional journalist". When I used "professional", I was thinking of his qualifications (medicine) and what I assume is his main livelihood/source of income (a doctor). That is not to say his journalism isn't professional -- I read his columns regularly, and think that his journalism is professional. Again, I don't think this is the issue -- many people do great work outside their main line of work, take Noam Chomsky for example. The problem is that newspapers have oversight, blogs don't -- that's not to say that Goldacre's blog isn't reliable, I just think it's less easy for us to defend references to blogs in general, especially in an article where according to Wikipedia's standards, we must accept high-quality source types. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanHenderson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
See Ben Goldacre - 2007 Award for statistical excellence in journalism. Go win an award for journalism from a Royal Society and you can call yourself a professional journalist too! Phaedrus86 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, wonderful, but do you have a reliable source that refers to him as a "professional journalist"? Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, do you have any reliable sources that refer to McKeith as a "qualified nutritionist" (note I said reliable)? I thought not. There is plenty of evidence that Goldacre is professional and a journalist, why the quibbles and why bother about it? Phaedrus86 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should ask Ben himself whether he considers himself a journalist by profession? If you mean he's a good journalist, then yes, I agree that he's a professional journalist. I think we're using the term "professional" in different ways. IanHenderson 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
We can't use a blog as a source of criticism of a BLP. The policy says we have to use the best sources available and that we may not use blogs. It says: "Information available solely on partisan websites ... should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject ... (emphasis added)." Given that we have several British broadsheets we can use, we do not need to keep on linking to someone's personal website. I have to wonder why people are editing a BLP without having read the BLP policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Read it properly - Information available solely on partisan websites - that says nothing about linking to a website like BadScience where the information is also available published in The Guardian. Its talking about sources for article content and not links anyway. Jooler 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Jooler 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Jooler, you read it properly. If it's in the Guardian, we can link to the Guardian. But if it hasn't been published elsewhere, then the information is available solely on the blog, in which case we can't use it. Please read the policies more carefully and think about what they mean, because constantly expecting other editors to explain them to you is incredibly time-consuming and not really fair. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can see no mention of links on that page exceptin the context of "using the subject as a source" where it says A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source. So your argument falls down as we are talking about links not sources for article content. Jooler
By link, she must have meant reference or back up a statement. The point is very simple though, we can either use the Guardian to substantiate a statement, in which case the more reputable source should be preferred, or the blog contains additional information, in which case the information is not published elsewhere, and is therefore inadmissible. In any case, we use the Guardian, and I don't see what the problem is with that. --Merzul 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If the content cited in the article is avalble in both The Guardian and the Blog - there is no reason even under the above regulation not to use the blog or the Guardian in the cite link, both are acceptable. Jooler 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If the content in the two sites is identical, and the BLP policy prefers the Guardian to a blog, why are we even wasting time arguing about it? If the content is not identical, however, particularly if the blog has some negative material not found in the Guardian, then, per BLP, we can't use the blog. (So why are we wasting time arguing about it?) ElinorD 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's merely your intepretation - I see no evidence that this is implied or stated anywhere. Jooler 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP says you can't use stuff sourced from blogs. It's not an interpretation, it's clear and simple policy. Please stop doing it, and please stop arguing about it. If you want to change WP:BLP, this is not the place for it. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again -we're not talking about sourcing from blogs, merely linking to them - which isn't covered. Jooler 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all ridiculous - Goldacre writes a regular column in a national newspaper and has won awards for journalism. Professional or full-time or whatever is irrelevant. Is Dr Phil Hammond a professional commedian or a professinal journalist, or just a GP, does it matter? no. Goldacre had done the research and and it is published in a national paper. The blogs expand upon that. Jooler 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then go to the BLP talk page and argue that the blog prohibition be changed, but this isn't the place to argue about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
His Guardian articles include a link to his blog, so we can have it both ways by citing the Guardian articles :-) Phaedrus86 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'professional' has a simple meaning... it means you get paid to do something. Therefore Gillian McKeith is a professional TV person and professional nutritionist, and Goldacre is a professional journalist and professional doctor. The word 'professional' implies nothing more. ••Briantist•• talk 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If my friend in Boston pays the kid down the block to shovel his driveway, does that make that kid a "professional driveway shoveller"? Your opinions on these matters really don't matter; you need to provide reliable sources for any claim, including the claim that someone is a "professional journalist". Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trevor McDonald

Still no mention that Trevor McDonald's programme did an expose on here in 2004 - I don't have more detail on this though. 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference here, but its a blog written by someone with no apparent qualifications, so the hall monitors will probably remove it if we try and use it...ok, and so they should!
Here's another ref to the Sun about the show. Amusing bit about how a "30 st darts ace...managed to join American Association of Nutritional Consultants" for $60, joining Hettie the dead cat and Gillian McKeith. Phaedrus86 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Career in the US

The extent of McKeith's media career in the US is questioned in this article: http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=402&cat=5. Sorry, don't know how to do a proper link. I'm a novice. Can anyone find anything more recent on this? I'm looking.... Jamrifis 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Allergy testing

McKeith also offers allergy testing by post, the British Dietitian lady had criticised that. I think that should be included because it's something McKeith does.Merkinsmum 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So what makes her popular?

As someone not from the UK, this article completely fails to explain why she is into her 4th season, why her books are selling well, and why she is making so much money. I tried to search for some book reviews, but didn't find much reliable. This was the best I found. In short, this article fails to explain her success, and why people like her. --Merzul 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the point I made a day or two ago: Instead of trying to prop up her dodgy qualifications and avoid scrutiny of her medical credentials, why not expand the publishing and broadcasting parts of the article, then there won't be any need to be critical of her. She is obviously good at producing TV shows and books, why not concentrate on that? Phaedrus86 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There would still be need to critical of her as some of what she does is good, some of it bad, like every person. Why she succeeds IMHO is she got results with the people featured in the programme, they really did show impressive weight loss and improved shape etc within 8 weeks. And among my friends that's why people bought her book, because they wanted those results. It's hard to explain how (she herself seems to imply it's by nagging) but she seems able to motivate the people featured on her show to make those changes. But that doesn't mean some of the advice she gives isn't 'wrong'/perhaps dangerous.Merkinsmum 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we should certainly present relevant criticism, I even added criticism like that, but I just think this article has focused too much on the negative, especially on ad hominem attacks regarding her education and use of credentials. All in all, this article seems too difficult for my Wikipedia abilities, so I will go back to less controversial articles like The God Delusion :) Good luck, everyone! --Merzul 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The attacks are on her education and credentials are not ad hominem per se. The attacks are merited because she gets real scientists angry because of the veneer of scientific rigour she adds. The point is that all the effort at the moment to be fair and unbiased towards the woman is going into defending her dodgy credentials. A fair and unbiased article would leave the well-deserved criticism as it is, but expand the article with explanations of how successful her tv shows and books are, and why that is so. The problem is that she is being treated as one-dimensional at the moment, and I don't believe that anyone gets to be that wealthy and famous without having a few more facets. Phaedrus86 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
She's not 'popular' in any real sense. 'You Are What You Eat' comes in at number 28 on Channel 4's list - 2.56 million viewers (4.2% of the UK public) [2] ••Briantist•• talk 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's astonishing that you can claim "She's not 'popular' in any real sense" because "only" 2.5 million people watch her show. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Italic text